Clerics Begin To Take Over

international | anti-war / imperialism | other press

Wednesday September 12, 2007 17:22

by Ali al-Fadhily

This article illustrates how the US invasion and occuption of Iraq has destroyed what was previously a secular society. Power has been put into the hands of reactionary clerics. Full article at the link.

Religious clerics are beginning to play an increasingly powerful role in Iraq. Many Iraqis now fear that they are endangering human rights and religious freedom in the once largely secular country. Clerics began to play a major role since the U.S.-led occupation began in April 2003. Despite the promises of U.S. President George W. Bush to turn Iraq into a secular and free country, clerics have become the real leaders, and are beginning to control most political matters.

"It is the Iraqis' misfortune that the international coalition has brought clerics to power," Dr. Shakir Hamdan, an expert on Islamic issues told IPS in Baghdad. "They will only lead the country into sectarian wars and take the whole country into the dark ages where one man rules and freedom is lost."

save preference

Comments (6 of 6)

Pre war Iraq

by Louth

Fri Sep 14, 2007 15:49

...was a secular society, but one where you and your family could be killed for having a satellite dish. As for the clerics taking over: condemn the clerics, not the Americans (plus Iraqis, plus British) who are fighting and dying to try to stop the militias from destroying the democracy there. The clerics are, after all, the enemy of both bush and the Iraqi left.

louth

by pat c

Fri Sep 14, 2007 16:21

i posted the article.Things are not as simple as you make out. The US is prepared to cut all sorts of deals with the Islamists. Read the articles at these links to see how the US treats the Iraqi Left:

Now the U.S. military is assassinating Iraqi peace workers
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/83897

IFC Statement on storming the headquarters of IFC in Baghdad by the US forces
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/83180

Islamists?

by Garth

Sat Sep 15, 2007 13:38

This article is not very accurate. Patc who says he posted it under another name speaks of pandering to 'Islamists'. The term 'Islamist' being the word of convenience used by the US and its fellow travellers when they really mean Muslim. 'Islamist' being supposed to denote the troublemakers and fanatical fundamentalist of the Muslim world. This is very inaccurate, as most propaganda words are, especially in the case of Iraq.

'Islamofascists' was the word being used by such posters for a while there but soundings showed it was backfiring on those using it, so it has been dropped.

The 'Islamists' you speak of in Iraq are of various hues. The Shia of Muktada al Sadr and other militias, with whom the US/UK have done deals, simply represent their own communities and should be termed 'sectarian' rather than Islamist. The same can be said of the Kurdish groups now making a bundle from deals done with the US. Sunni groups are likewise sectarian in their outlook and not at all Islamist.

This just leaves the Qaida, who are flourishing in Iraq. They would be the only group that would fall into the Wests 'Islamist' tick-box. There have been no deals done with al Qaida and never will be. Not becuase the US will not but because al Qaida will not. Not now, not ever.

Is 'Anti-Islamic' the opposite of 'Islamist'?

Garth

Sat Sep 15, 2007 18:53

Islamists is a term which is also used by Iraqi & Iranian Socialists. Perhaps you should educate them on the PC terms to use.

When its a question of which side you are on, I am not at all confused. I support the Anti Imperialist Iraqi & Iranian Socialists who oppose both US Imperialism and Islamic Fundamentalists.

I reckon the opposite of islamist is Secularist. You might find it hard to believe but there are Iraqis and Iranians who dont believe in rule by the clergy.

"Hi, my name is Bertie, I'm a Socialist"

Sun Sep 16, 2007 11:56

The Baath part was socialist. Why don't you support their return if you love anything with a 'Socialist' tag. But then Tony Blair and even Bertie Ahern are 'Socialists'. A Socialist name tag can often be very convenient to hide the true motivations of little dictators. You seem to think that by declaring as 'Socialist' you must join the anti-islamic grouping. This is an over simplification of even a black and white view of the world.

But the inaccuracy I point out in this article of yours is that you or the orignal writer claim the US is doing deals with 'Islamists' in Iraq. My point is that this is not the case. The US/UK have done deals with sectarian militias and other groupings. If you must simplify the world to try and understand it, then in this instance, it patently does not work.

'Islamists' as you and the US call them, are not interested in sectarian or sectional interests. Al Qaida have shown this time and again. When Israel was killing the people of Shia South Lebanon last year and the Sunni shieks in Saudi Arabia were telling all Sunnis not to support the Shia Hizbollah, al Qaida issued a statement calling all Muslims to support them in their resistance to the Zionist invasion of their country.

The Shia militia leader Moktada al Sadr stopped supporting the US created government yesterday, causing massive problems for US plans. At the same time Abu Omar al Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State of Iraq, an al Qaida surrogate, announced that it was the Qaida who had killed a leading Sunni tribal leader who sided with the Americans. The Qaida are not tribal, not sectarian and not involved in any deals with the US.

The Tribal and sectarian groups will shift their allegiance to and from the US as they see fit . This is not Islamist but selfish and these are the groups you called Islamist.

The real Islamist group, al Qaida, has not done any deals with the US. Never will. Not a bullet, not an ounce!

garth

Sun Sep 16, 2007 19:17

Are you really suggesting that specific Iranian & Iraqi groups are not socialist? If so then name them.

"'Islamists' as you and the US call them, "

Islamists is a term in every day use. Its even used by the SWP when they aree reffering to those who promote Political Islam. Mike Davis uses the terrm in his book Budas Wagon, Pilger uses it, Chomsky uses it (they dont put it in ""). Only a few trolls on indymedia have a problem with the word.

You appear to have a narrow definition of what constitutes islamist. Not one that I would agree with. And going on examples from Indymedia, CounterPunch, Counter Currents etc, a lot of others would differ with your definition.

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Human Rights in Ireland

Clerics Begin To Take Over

Comments (6 of 6)